nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Interesting article. He makes a good point. The only question is whether or not the end result would be that of shooting oneself in the foot. While there is no doubt that a benefit is derived for the radio station, there is also a very large benefit to the artist. Without the airplay, sales of their music would likely be much less.

perhaps that might have been true decades past.. but, in this age of the internet, i'd say, radio is not the sole vector by which artists get their music played to the masses. In other words, terrestrial radio lost it's exclusive value as THE disseminating means for artists to get heard. Until now, radio has been able to sell ad space and lure listeners by virtue of no cost music. If, imo is correctly pointed out, net radio must pay then so too should the tit be snatched from terrestrial radio.

which, is another nail in the coffin of terrestrial radio in this age of the internet. Next stop: widespread use of net radio replacing radio stations.

nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Then Billy Corgan needs to write a contract which requires stations that play it, compensation as he wants it.

That's how it works... whe he releases the product for sale, that release is based upon the terms and conditions of the contract.

I suggest that instead of playing the victim that he just re-write his contracts and from here on out, whatever he sells on those contracts will be controlled by those terms.

Under the current contracts he's obligated to the terms and conditions through which that work was released.

Now does that mean that certain feminized individuals will not lend credence to this fallacious whining and try to hold the broadcast industry to retroactive terms... but that's the nature of cultural subversives; OKA: Idiots.

Billy is full of crap. As a writer and recording artist I can give you an idea of how this works. The notion that radio stations play "free music" is absurd. Royalties are collected by one of three agencies that represent the creators of the music: BMI, ASCAP or SESAC. Writers, composers and contributors join one of these agencies and the agency is contracted to protect the rights of the creators and collect the associated royalties. Radio stations submit a playlist monthly to these organizations, listing the music they broadcast. The organizations then compile the the information and distribute the royalties accordingly from the broadcast fees the radio stations pay. And it isn't only the radio stations paying. If you have elevator music, that is a "re broadcast". You pay for that. If you hire live performers, performing copyrighted and represented works, you pay. Any radio or TV used for anything other than personal use is a re broadcast. If you have televisions in your bar and grill, that's a re broadcast, you pay. There are tons of fees for using copyrighted music. If you have dancing, there is an additional fee for allowing that to occur during copyrighted broadcast. Have a juke box ? You pay.

The system is far from perfect and the formula for directing royalties is really, really, screwy. I get a minimal amount of air play and I should get paid 7.5 cents per play. But I usually don't. First you have to show up on enough playlist to amount to a certain level of play before you will enter the radio and television pool. The long and short of it is that a guy like myself can play 200 dates a year, at licensed, paying establishments, (they pay for the right to have me perform, per my BMI contract) and then Garth Brooks gets my money. It doesn't seem right at first and really isn't, but when you get a look at the sheer volume of works represented and the sheer number of plays of thousands and thousands of works EVERYDAY, you understand that the formula is about as fair as it can be. YOu can't afford to have a personal monitor to check every station and record every play of your music, especially when you get maybe 50 - 100 spins a month.

Anyway, as to Billy's gripe, he is asking that the radio stations pay royalties or performance fees to the PERFROMER, as well as the creators of the music. The problem is this: YOU ARE A PERFORMER. You get paid to perform. You want royalties, I suggest you learn to write. Writers already get the shaft when a song is a hit. The performer makes a ton of money and yes, the writer gets a share, but not anywhere near the performer. This is a problem. In essence, the performer wants to make money without creating the music AND without performing. They want to be paid for broadcast. It's whiny bullshit. What they can do is require private license agreements to broadcast their performance. Of course, if that was the norm, no one would even know who Billy is and the already ultra competetive market would tighten further on emerging artist. Yes, the same 5 songs instead of the same 15.

nternet radio has to pay performance rights but broadcast stations get a free pass.

Billy Corgan, founder of the rock band Smashing Pumpkins, told Congress on Tuesday that must change.

"This issue is one of fundamental fairness," Corgan told lawmakers. "If the performance of a song has value to a particular terrestrial radio station in its airing, I believe it is only right to compensate those performers who have created this work.

"Simply put, if a station plays a song, both the author and the performer should be paid," he continued. "These particular performances must have value to the stations or they wouldn't be playing them."

Corgan was testifying on behalf of the Performance Rights Act, which "would close a loophole in copyright law that allows music radio stations to earn billions every year without compensating the artists and musicians," according to a statement from the legislation's backers.

The National Association of Broadcasters does compensate songwriters and music publishers and has for decades. It does not, however, pay record labels or the artists. The thinking has always been that free airplay promotes the sale of music which benefits those groups.

"We think this performance tax would decimate the radio business," said Dennis Wharton, an NAB spokesman. "The reality is record labels have used artists as a shield in this debate. We welcome a discussion on who has been more fair to artists: The foreign-owned record labels (Universal Music, Sony and EMI) or America's hometown radio broadcasters."

Then Billy Corgan needs to write a contract which requires stations that play it, compensation as he wants it.

That's how it works... whe he releases the product for sale, that release is based upon the terms and conditions of the contract.

I suggest that instead of playing the victim that he just re-write his contracts and from here on out, whatever he sells on those contracts will be controlled by those terms.

Under the current contracts he's obligated to the terms and conditions through which that work was released.

Now does that mean that certain feminized individuals will not lend credence to this fallacious whining and try to hold the broadcast industry to retroactive terms... but that's the nature of cultural subversives; OKA: Idiots.

Click to expand...

hehehe.. you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, do you.

Even bars have to pay to play songs in their juke boxes. WOW, dude.. just. WOW.

Anyway, as to Billy's gripe, he is asking that the radio stations pay royalties or performance fees to the PERFROMER, as well as the creators of the music. The problem is this: YOU ARE A PERFORMER. You get paid to perform. You want royalties, I suggest you learn to write. Writers already get the shaft when a song is a hit. The performer makes a ton of money and yes, the writer gets a share, but not anywhere near the performer. This is a problem. In essence, the performer wants to make money without creating the music AND without performing. They want to be paid for broadcast. It's whiny bullshit. What they can do is require private license agreements to broadcast their performance. Of course, if that was the norm, no one would even know who Billy is and the already ultra competetive market would tighten further on emerging artist. Yes, the same 5 songs instead of the same 15.

Go fuck yourself Billy.
Reply With Quote

um, who, EXACTLY, do you think wrote songs for The Smashing Pumpkins? Willie Nelson?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!